I need to know something in a poll form.

[Art]

ART, Are you really saying the only difference between coaches is their evaluation of players to bring in?

Your arguement is funny because it would imply that ANY TEAM WITH A GM, where the GM DECIDES what positions are NEEDED WOULD FAIL.

Something tells me that teams that let GM decide What positions are needed, have done well in the past...NO?

I've never heard of a team in the league's history with a GM who picked players independent of the system in place and direction of the staff. General Managers are valuable because they gather the data from the coaches as to what is necessary, and they attempt to find players to fit those areas. A good GM will be able to do this with various staffs and various priorities on the field that can be challenging.

[JoeKnowsBest]

I think the Skins' FO did EXACTLY what a lot of fans had been complaining about over the past three years:

2004's defense was stellar...but we lost our MLB (Pierce) and our #2 CB (Smoot). Fans said we never should have let them go.

2005's defense was down slightly, but still top-notch (the playoff victory was due to defense and ONLY defense...they were stunning in that victory)....but then we lost our safety (Clark). Fans said we never should have let him go.

2006's defensive performance was atrocious...fans said "We never should have let Pierce go! We never should have let Smoot go! We never should have let Clark go!". In many fans' eyes the Skins weakened a stellar defense over a two year span by letting their MLB, CB and safety leave.

So what does the Skins' FO do this offseason?...They go out and get a MLB, a CB and a safety.

They sign Fletcher, a real, bonafide MLB.

They re-sign Smoot, the CB they let go.

They draft Landry, a true stud of a safety.

The three positions that many fans claimed the Skins' FO weakened over the last few years by thinking "We can plug anyone in there and win" were all addressed and strengthened considerably. You guys should be doing backflips.

Good point. This is a nice moderate point both sides of this debate can come to appreciate.

Gregg Williams defense, as has been pointed out by others, has had some nice defensive lines with other teams. And I'm not really sure, but was Jevon Kearse drafted when Greg Williams was still defensive coordinator for the tightens? I remember his first few years he was a freak!

Art, I respect the point of this thread and awareness you are trying to raise. Although, you've got my head spinning with all the other things you're trying to debate. Some just seem a little contradictory to me. It's almost like those Aflac commercials with Yogi Bera.

In short, I'm going to finish up on the board and go to bed. I think the real problem is not that we think we know more than the coaches, but that the front office personel and the coaches also are still only human. This along the point I stated before that there are simply too many people with different idea's and opinions all trying to mesh each supposed to get their way and each with different ideas into making these decisions and it just doesn't work like it's supposed to.

And as far as the 'there's no possible way the staff could be wrong because they are in charge and have their own plan' arguements, I really hate to bring up Germany in the 1930s-1940s so I'll just say that and leave it there...

[skinsn24]

Skinsn,

There's no contradiction in anything I've said. The evaluation of players is the hardest thing in the world of sports to get right because there is the element of humanity at play. Evaluating a system is easy, almost mathematical work. It's obvious, if tedious. But, it is plain and unable to miss. You determine to make it work you need a middle linebacker who makes quick, sure reads, and finishes plays he's designed to finish. You sign Fletcher. Whether Fletcher is the answer is irrelevant to the process. He could have taken one too many hits and have his body break in camp with something totally unexpected. HE could be great.

The human element of how people react to certain situations makes personnel evaluation uncertain. And here it is perfectly reasonable to question why one guy was taken over another to fix the problem, but, that presumes you're actually willing to acknowledge it boils down you knowing they know what they are trying to accomplish better than you.

People here are actually pretty sure they aren't.

It interesting ART, I understand that if a coach says he needs a speedy MLB in his system, he is correct in that.

However you must realize they then evualate their own PLAYERS (this is player evaluation). You seem to think that when evaluating their own players, they can make no mistakes, yet when evaluates other players they do.

For example:

1. Lets say they look at REDSKIN X on game tape and decide he does everything wrong. They look at REDSKIN Y and say he does everything right.

2. They look at OTHER PLAYER X and decide he does everything right.

The first part of that example you claim they cannot get wrong, but the second part you claim is very easy to get wrong. That doesnt make sense.

Lastly, if the only thing a coach can get wrong is the actual player to bring in, this clearly implies that the difference between a great winning coach and a horrible losing coach is only in their evaluation of which exact player to bring in. Do you really beleive that?

[Art]

I think there is a fallacy here. The fact that Detroit took Calvin Johnson does not imply that wide receiver was their biggest single need. It merely implies that Calvin Johnson was the best player available that corresponded to one of Detroit's many needs. The Lions also need a QB, an OT, and any number of other positions. However, Calvin Johnson was a once-in-a-decade talent that the Lions could not pass up.

Similarly, I do not believe that our drafting of LaRon Landry necessarily means that we needed a safety more than a defensive lineman. If simply means that we needed LaRon Landry at safety more than we needed Jamaal Anderson at DE or Amobi Okoye at DT. If a safety of Landry's caliber were not available at #6, I seriously doubt we would have picked a safety in the first round.

I don't disagree with you that the Lions may have had more pressing needs than receiver, but, receiver was a need. If Rogers or Williams were as good as Roy Williams, you can be assured Calvin Johnson would not be in Detroit today. In the case of the Lions, they may have had a number of needs outlined, and simply took the best player at one of them they could. We could have done this as well, as you say.

Obviously if someone unworthy of the pick was not available, we would have done something else. If Okoye was a better prospect, we could have taken him. No doubt about that. I don't disagree with you that the mere selection of a player in the draft means he is a greater need than another position. It is the total effect of this offseason that gives you that answer.

[skinsn24]

I've never heard of a team in the league's history with a GM who picked players independent of the system in place and direction of the staff. General Managers are valuable because they gather the data from the coaches as to what is necessary, and they attempt to find players to fit those areas. A good GM will be able to do this with various staffs and various priorities on the field that can be challenging.

A good GM cannot break down a play, with all the terminology, ect ect, like you ask for us to do.

They can look at simplified things and should understand the system, but alot of times they are building a team that may have gone through 3 or 4 different coaches.

Are you telling me Al Davis has never picked a player who a coach didnt want, or who might not fit into the system?

[McD5]

I've explained this throughout the thread.

I'd like to hear your view as to how they could fail to identify the types of players and roles they require to make their systems go though, while explaining how any fan could know that part better.

Very easy Art, reduced down to the simplest of terms so all can follow:

If a coach truly believed that a fantastic field goal kicker was the number one key to making his offense unstoppable.

He neglected the qb, the running backs, the line, the receivers, but rather identified the biggest need in his offense as a great field goal kicker.

This is a simple, unrealistic and highly unlikely example of how an FO can be completely off on trying to determine what the most important area might be on their offensive scheme.

Just because the FO thinks that safeties and linebackers are our biggest need, does not mean they are 100% correct, and that they couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Art]

Joe,

I'm not arguing any point other than the one I've started with. Everyone else is bringing in items that don't exist in the premise of the conversation or anything I've said. The fans here believe we needed defensive linemen despite the clear indication the people running the system didn't have that priority.

That means the priority didn't exist and we know it didn't because the people who know how to make their system go said it didn't. That matters more than whether we happen to see sack numbers we like or understand.

[number twenty-eight]

Let's imagine that Landry didn't exist. He wasn't in this draft, and we're drafting at six. Who do we take? I guarantee you it isn't another safety.

[TheLongshot]

I guess the question people want answered, and may be outside the bounds of your argument, is how do you judge when the system itself is flawed? When do you decide that this is just not working and no tweaking is going to fix things?

Spurrier comes to mind. His system didn't seem to work when going up against pro-level players. The Run-And-Shoot was run rather quickly out of the league (maybe because it is hard to find the right players to have it work correctly in the NFL).

I guess it comes when the powers-that-be run out of patience.

Jason

[Art]

It interesting ART, I understand that if a coach says he needs a speedy MLB in his system, he is correct in that.

However you must realize they then evualate their own PLAYERS (this is player evaluation). You seem to think that when evaluating their own players, they can make no mistakes, yet when evaluates other players they do.

For example:

1. Lets say they look at REDSKIN X on game tape and decide he does everything wrong. They look at REDSKIN Y and say he does everything right.

2. They look at OTHER PLAYER X and decide he does everything right.

The first part of that example you claim they cannot get wrong, but the second part you claim is very easy to get wrong. That doesnt make sense.

Lastly, if the only thing a coach can get wrong is the actual player to bring in, this clearly implies that the difference between a great winning coach and a horrible losing coach is only in their evaluation of which exact player to bring in. Do you really beleive that?

Not even sure what you're saying here, but, I absolutely believe the weakest part of what we do as an organization is to evaluate our own players. Not from a fit standpoint so much as a play standpoint. Again, Gibbs saying we could find a flaw in Superman resonates. We are so close to these guys, everything they do wrong is so completely understood. On film, the staff doesn't have the same measure of other players on other teams they have of their own. They don't know the play calls or reads assigned on the game film of the opposition.

They see things a little cleaner there. Flaws don't stick out. If they see a blown play, they might ignore it, thinking, "Well, in our system, he'd do X, but there he's doing Y, and X would have stopped that." Whatever. But, again, this is the second part of the acquisition or retention process. At the root you have the base evaluation of what the team needs to make things work. Then you grade players you think can do that.

We are a very poor team at grading our own players, and it's one thing I know has hurt us more than any other thing we've done over the years.

[skinsn24]

Joe,

I'm not arguing any point other than the one I've started with. Everyone else is bringing in items that don't exist in the premise of the conversation or anything I've said. The fans here believe we needed defensive linemen despite the clear indication the people running the system didn't have that priority.

Art, you dont know this as a truth. Yes now joe gibbs says the DL is fine, even though a few months ago he said it was a problem

What we do know is the team valued Landry more than any player on the board.

We also know that the team valued Briggs + a 31 more than Landry. Does this mean LB was a bigger need? We dont know.

What we also dont know is if J. Peppers was sitting there at 6, that Landry would still be the pick.

I beleive that if J. Peppers was there at 6 (in his rookie form), he would have been drafted not Landry, WHY? Because he is the best player on the board at a position of need. Would this mean DE was a bigger need than S, or vice versa? NO, it simply means that the best player at one of the needed positions was Peppers.

Then Again if Laurnce Taylor was sitting there at 6, we prob would draft him over Landry. Does this mean LB was a bigger S, no. It simply means the best player aviable at a position of need was a LB.

[Art]

A good GM cannot break down a play, with all the terminology, ect ect, like you ask for us to do.

They can look at simplified things and should understand the system, but alot of times they are building a team that may have gone through 3 or 4 different coaches.

Are you telling me Al Davis has never picked a player who a coach didnt want, or who might not fit into the system?

Actually, it's probably not true a GM could break down the terminology. Most could not. While the team is in season, coaching, personnel people are out working on evaluating players. They don't have a lot of overlap together. They aren't sitting in meetings together until the prep for the offseason comes into play. GMs go about finding players who fit what their coaches tell them is necessary to win. They don't present their coaches with players absent that coordination. At some level, you must know this.

[skinsn24]

We are a very poor team at grading our own players, and it's one thing I know has hurt us more than any other thing we've done over the years.

Ahh very nice.

SO i ask this. If we miss evalaute a current player (on the negative side, meaning the skins evaluate that he did alot worse than he actually did), say this player plays saftey. Doesnt this mean that we may have mis evaluated our need for a replacment saftey??

[Art]

Let's imagine that Landry didn't exist. He wasn't in this draft, and we're drafting at six. Who do we take? I guarantee you it isn't another safety.

True, not at No. 6. Landry happened to be the best player available and he just happened to play the biggest need we had, so it was a good marriage of pick and player. But, we certainly would have gone another direction had he not been there, or, say, we had real success with Archuleta last year and the element of need wasn't as clear.

[Morneblade]

Since when has it ever been true that Gregg Williams' defense can't use a pass rusher? Was it in Tennessee? Buffalo? Where did this fictional bit of truth become reality on this message board?

It became "truth" when we had a lack of personel, and Williams was FORCED to blitz to create any kind of pressure becuase the front 4 was incapalble of doing so on it's own. And then spun as to it being the 'system".

Ahh, but what does history actually say about GW's defenses?

Sack leaders for the Teams in which GW was either HC or DC.

1997 Titans: 8-8

DE Kenny Holmes7.0

DT Gary Walker7.0

1998 Titans: 8-8

LB Lonnie Marts4.0

*Note: Joe Salave'a was his 4th rounder

1999 Titans 13-3

DE Jevon Kearse14.5

DE Henry Ford5.5

*Note: Go to the SB

2000 Titans 13-3

DE Jevon Kearse11.5

DE Kenny Holmes8.0

2001 Bills 3-13

DE Aaron Schobel6.5

*Note: no one else had even 4 sacks, not much pressure from this group

2002 Bills 8-8

DE Aaron Schobel8.5

DE/DT Chidi Ahanotu5.0

2003 Bills 6-10

DE Aaron Schobel11.5

LB Jeff Posey5.5

NT Sam Adams5.0

So, before coming to Washington, GW got his pressure from his front 4. So, it's not the scheme, its the lack of players.

[TheLongshot]

What we do know is the team valued Landry more than any player on the board.

We also know that the team valued Briggs + a 31 more than Landry. Does this mean LB was a bigger need? We dont know.

Actually, you could argue that the Skins felt that Briggs was an impact player, and would be worth trading the 6th pick for, especially when it got them another pick (#31). Since the goal for the 6th pick was to get an impact player, that would have been a good deal.

Jason

[Skins11]

at some point this one sided argument gets tiresome:

- there are 30+ teams in the NFL.....fans may not know the micro details...but they can see the macro details. over time they have a basis for comparatively assessing the relative merits/productivity of one management structure & vision over another

- I don't know the grade outs of the coaching staff? yea. so? you know the inner details on what is going on in Iraq? I doubt it. still vote? still have an opinion? think there are better strategies? I'd be careful about the "insider" angle as a tool for muffling debate. yeay, yea, yea. football aint war. but it's the principle in play that matters...not the subject domain.

- as you note...there is no perfect information state...even by those who consider themselves insiders.......only degrees. from this perspective...humility is probably something that should be exercised across the board....just saying... .....

- btw...at what point does one arrive at the "quantitatively" established conclusion "yup. This FO does blow. The decision process/vision has been wrong"?

In the event, I personally am less concerned about all the angst being vented over this one issue. You could see this coming quite a while ago (the signals were all there) and, when viewed in a longer-term perspective, makes sense. my problem, though I haven't completely worked it out yet, is whether the strategy being crafted by the Skins adds up over time. The discussion that needs to be held on this board is on the better ways to build a sustained championship caliber team in the era of the cap. Just as the SKins managed to be challenging for the SB about once evey 3 years during the 80s....one has to ask....what strategy can achieve the same sort of success over 5 to 10 years today? To me...it just seems that the Skins are always out of synch (for lack of a better phrase) personnel wise (i.e., offense versus defense, units within defense/offense). there will always be deltas...but on this team there is a feeling that the deltas have not been managed well - are larger than they need be. we should be seeing 2-3 years of championship caliber football followed by one/maybe 2 years of downtime as the team maneuvers/reloads. we aren't seeing this.

:applause:

Great Post!

[skinsn24]

Actually, you could argue that the Skins felt that Briggs was an impact player, and would be worth trading the 6th pick for, especially when it got them another pick (#31). Since the goal for the 6th pick was to get an impact player, that would have been a good deal.

Jason

Yea i know, my point was would that indicate that LB was a bigger need than S

Because Art has stated that the teams biggest need was at S because they drafted a Saftey.

I say we drafted a saftey because he was cleary the best player there at 6, and S was one of our many needs, regardless of which one was a bigger need.

Just like if we had traded our 6th for J. Peppers, it would be an impact player at a need. Would this mean DE was a bigger need than S? NO, it would simply imply that Peppers was a better player than Landry

[Art]

Art, you dont know this as a truth. Yes now joe gibbs says the DL is fine, even though a few months ago he said it was a problem.

I think it's adorable you've now changed from, the unsupportable platform of, "Of course the people who run their systems might not know what they need to make it work," to, "Hey, buddy, you don't know they didn't prioritize defensive line in the offseason."

First, yeah, I do. I know this because we not only didn't whiff at one, but, because the players we did acquire were who they are, and, the players we didn't acquire, but were interested in (Briggs and Bly) are who they are. While I know Gibbs and company have suggested they would be looking at how to improve all areas of a very bad football team, I know they told us through actions what words have told us along the way. They viewed coverage as a problem and improving that would require teams to hold the ball longer than last year.

Fans suggest last year the problem was teams had 10 seconds to throw. Reality is teams threw on timing and rhythm. Again, we know this because we were told, which we can ignore, for knowing it for what we did. If we were covering well for five seconds and getting beat on six, you'd have seen Okoye, Anderson or someone else in the first, and about two other specialists there in later rounds. But, that too is irrelevant. You've chosen to be unable to hear the message, whether told or spoken.

So, what's the point of trying to make you get it now since it hasn't penetrated yet?

[Art]

Ahh very nice.

SO i ask this. If we miss evalaute a current player (on the negative side, meaning the skins evaluate that he did alot worse than he actually did), say this player plays saftey. Doesnt this mean that we may have mis evaluated our need for a replacment saftey??

No. Because the individual player grade comes after the need assessment. You first break down the team and every play and identify who did what wrong. You then grade players for how you view them as players and slot them. And you prioritize them and try to improve. If you miss on a replacement where the original guy was better, it doesn't mean you missed on the need to get better, merely that you missed on who you picked to accomplish it.

[flexxskins]

Well, we definitely don't have the inside scoop on exactly what is best for our team...teams, offense, defense, what have you. I think that it was Art that once asked the question of whether or not a rookie D-lineman/men would have even started for us anyway?

Therefore, who's to say that the FO doesn't have some inside info on a couple of D-linemen that are about to be released that would fit well with our D? I'm just saying, it might not be over yet as far as that subject is concerned. We just don't know. :2cents:

[DjTj]

I don't disagree with you that the Lions may have had more pressing needs than receiver, but, receiver was a need. If Rogers or Williams were as good as Roy Williams, you can be assured Calvin Johnson would not be in Detroit today. In the case of the Lions, they may have had a number of needs outlined, and simply took the best player at one of them they could. We could have done this as well, as you say.

Obviously if someone unworthy of the pick was not available, we would have done something else. If Okoye was a better prospect, we could have taken him. No doubt about that. I don't disagree with you that the mere selection of a player in the draft means he is a greater need than another position. It is the total effect of this offseason that gives you that answer.

I'm not sure it's really THAT clear ... there weren't very many DE's or DT's on the free agent market this year, so we don't really know if we would have gone after them.

I'll agree that the echo chamber on the forum is certainly wrong that defensive line was our clear-cut greatest need, but I wouldn't be surprised if the coaches thought it was a pretty close question between needing an elite defensive lineman and an elite safety. In fact, they probably didn't even really have to answer that question on its own - they had to ask both questions at once: (1) What do we need? (2) Who is available? Only on a message board do we ask those questions in isolation.

The team clearly decided that Landry was a bigger upgrade over Fox/Prioleau than Okoye would have been over Griffin/Golston or Anderson over Daniels/Evans. That's the only real question that they needed to answer, and when put in those terms, I can't say I disagree with the pick.

[Art]

I guess the question people want answered, and may be outside the bounds of your argument, is how do you judge when the system itself is flawed? When do you decide that this is just not working and no tweaking is going to fix things?

Spurrier comes to mind. His system didn't seem to work when going up against pro-level players. The Run-And-Shoot was run rather quickly out of the league (maybe because it is hard to find the right players to have it work correctly in the NFL).

I guess it comes when the powers-that-be run out of patience.

Jason

I've answered that. Mike Nolan could tell me he needs certain players to make his system go and I'd agree he knows what he's talking about. My position in rejection of him would be that his system is terrible and he needs to be smart enough to adjust it to win, because simply making his broken system go isn't good enough.

So, I'm all for someone who understands they don't know what is needed to make a system go better than the coaches and being honest and saying something like Gregg Williams is an incompetent coordinator who doesn't know how to put good defenses together on his own and his whole system is invalid.

As soon as I see that, it'll be a great conversation. DFB already admitted it himself. He feels Williams' system isn't a good system. I'm more than willing to discuss the merits of his system too because that's not an area I have any concern with at all as it aligns perfectly with what I like in a coordinator .

[skinsn24]

I think it's adorable you've now changed from, the unsupportable platform of, "Of course the people who run their systems might not know what they need to make it work," to, "Hey, buddy, you don't know they didn't prioritize defensive line in the offseason."

First, yeah, I do. I know this because we not only didn't whiff at one, but, because the players we did acquire were who they are, and, the players we didn't acquire, but were interested in (Briggs and Bly) are who they are.

So, what's the point of trying to make you get it now since it hasn't penetrated yet?

NO ART, i have not changed my position. I think it is possible for coaches to mis evaluate a need. I still think this true.

You have said they can misevaluate the play of their own players, (in other words, they look at a tape, and say this guy did this wrong, when in fact, he did it right or not nearly as bad as they thought) this then could directly lead to the mis evaluation of need. If the staff believes a player on their own team played at much lower level than they actually did, they will then create a false need.

Also the fact that we didnt wiff at the defensive line doesnt mean it wasnt a need, it might mean that a player wasnt avaible.

I question this, if caronlina had called us and said "Peppers with a new deal, for the 6th" Is gibbs gonna say "NO thanks, we dont need a DE, we need a SS"?

Man art, you came so close to keeping it civil

[Sebowski]

This is the same staff that brought Arch and Duckett in isn't it? They got that wrong didn't they? Some fans saw that all along didn't they?

It isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it out. They aren't perfect, and neither are we. They may be right more often than we are, but it is far from 100% of the time.